Skip to main content

About your Search

20120929
20121007
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
of corporation for pbs patricia harrison was vice chair of the party and people are not even talking about that. >> it depends on where you stand. brilliant pbs to hire her to lobby for more money from the government. >> we don't have a lot of money and we can't borrow from china. >> one hundredth of 1% is pbs. >> one one millionth of 1 percent is the other way. >> jon: speaking of gaffes and how the media handled them. next big debate is the vice presidential debate. what is going to be, i guess the means, as vice president biden goes up against ryan. >> you are all in chains and middle-class is buried. the media picked up on these on the way dan quayle there wouldn't be a debate. they would have biden in an undisclosed question. >> jon: big vice presidential debate comes next week, you can with a watch it on fox news channel on thursday night and more news watch ahead. >> first, if you see something that you feel shows evidence of media bias. you have twitter you can tweet us. are the polls biased or is it the coverage? >> bring in the numbers, when it comes to political polls, who do you tru
the subsidy to pbs. i like pbs, i love big bird. i like you, too, but i'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from china. >> thank goodness somebody is finally getting tough on big bird. that's about time. we didn't know that big bird was driving the federal deficit. but that's what we heard last night. >> bret: in all seriousness, pbs released a statement today and they said, quote, we are very disappointed that pbs became a political target in the presidential debate. governor romney does not understand the value of american people place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation. the federal investment and public broadcasting equals about one, 100th of 1% of the federal budget, elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nation's debt, yet the loss to the american public would be devastating. there are some people who say that that was not the best thing to mention, bringing up big bird. >> you're talking about somebody who does like pbs, but who believes the constitution means what it says. l
line for democrats. caller: good morning, i am a big fan of amy goodman. i saw a documentary on pbs for what was called free elections that i have not had a chance to really look at it. it is about getting the votes to the people where they have to be obliged to the people. that is one thing. i would like to see cspan to start on that. every time i see wal-mart commercials and they talk about feeding the hungry and talk about how much money they have raised, it makes me so angry when they won't even pay their people a living wage. if we had a living wage, we would not have to have people on food stamps and we would not have to have people struggling. host: before i get a response, what would be your definition of a living wage? guest it is different for every area. caller: in our area, look much housing is. you cannot make enough money to even rent a home. one more thing -- i love president obama but my anger is when they went into the negotiations for health care, they took the public auction off the table. to me, that is the foundation of it. like she said about medicare for all,
minutes and then there is a rebuttal. megyn: jim lehrer of pbs will be moderating. they devote the rest of the 15-minute block to a discussion. so hopefully there will be a chance to press the candidates for followup, or real answers if they try to dodge. because you know and our viewers know having watched 25 presidential debates during the primaries, they all do it. they dodge. they hear this is a question on jobs. what's my policy on jobs, this what is i'm going to say without necessarily answering the question asked. hopefully the mat, the discussion after the initial response will give us a chance to hear real answers. having studies up on these debates it seems like the need many gets moved not so much by these soaring rhetorical moment but by a gafer that one of them may have or by one moment of connection that they may have with the viewers at home. ronald reagan, there you go again. bill: i think you make a great point on that. what you are saying is it's built in a format that will help encourage robust exchanges that would alloy the other to challenge the other one. megyn: we
demoderates a debate a pbs anchor that fox has power over him. so look at the ridiculous nature of what i'm saying. this is in defense of the indefensible, on stub tans president obama was not ready. he was not ready to handle the result of the months of attacking mitt romney. he had been attacking him, calling him a liar, a his campaign. the responsible for the murder of a woman. now unfiltered meeting with mitt romney and they were face to face, that's a difficult position. so ed schultz lied about it, axelrod dishonest and liar. they are pushing a narrative of negative much like the president said he would do if you have nothing to run on you make your opponent someone to run away from to paraphrase. >> silly a couple days ago i was talking to a republic strategist african-american and she was saying that black men sometimes do have to worry about this. whether it be in business or any field. >> why? then that's. >> some white people in our society do react to a strong point of view as oh you are an angry black man. >> i eject that. it's a ridiculous proposition. you are as you are. ac
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)